agenthop_create

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations cover the safety profile (non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real workflow behavior: a pairing code is produced, it must be relayed to the user, and background is transmitted as the opening line to the other side. It could still note whether repeated calls create duplicate rooms, but it adds genuine context beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences with the primary outcome front-loaded and no filler. Density is high but every clause carries operational information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description supplies the key return value (the pairing code) and the surrounding flow, which is what an agent needs to call this correctly. Minor gaps remain around failure cases or re-invocation, but the essentials are covered.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema lacks: background is not just a topic label, it becomes the other party's opening line and a mutual identity check. accept_files is left to the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

'Open a room and return its pairing code' gives a specific verb, resource, and return artifact, and explicitly names the counterpart command (agenthop_join) so the agent can distinguish it from its pairing sibling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states the required downstream action ('hand the whole code to the user to pass on') and routes the other side to agenthop_join, which is explicit context. It stops short of stating when this should NOT be used (e.g. when you should instead accept a pending invite), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.